Hey, fun fact, threatening an elections official with criminal prosecution unless he rigs an election in your favor is not just impeachable but a federal crime
More from Seth Abramson
(EXCERPT) PROOF OF COLLUSION drops in 3 weeks. Here's the second set of excerpts from this 450-page, 1,650-endnote book. 4 more excerpts will be released each Monday until the book's November 13 release. I hope you'll RETWEET and consider preordering here: https://t.co/z0ep5wUW9h
2/ For those who missed the first set of excerpts from PROOF OF COLLUSION, they can be seen in the tweet below—click on the link to see the tweet. For the link to preorder PROOF OF COLLUSION, see my currently pinned tweet or the link in my Twitter profile.
PS/ To see a larger, more readily readable version of any of these excerpts, right-click and download the picture to your desktop. Then open the file and it will be much larger and easier to read.
BONUS FACT/ In the last excerpt, I refer to "any aide with whom Trump shared the classified intelligence he received in the [August 17, 2016] briefing." Well you might wonder—who did he share it with? Answer: we don't know.
But we DO know who was WITH HIM at the briefing: FLYNN.
BONUS FACT 2/ According to Mother Jones and Washington Post reporting, then, we know Flynn attended the August 17, 2016 briefing at which Trump was informed of Russian aggression, and THEREAFTER—but BEFORE the election—engaged in clandestine contacts with the Russian ambassador.

2/ For those who missed the first set of excerpts from PROOF OF COLLUSION, they can be seen in the tweet below—click on the link to see the tweet. For the link to preorder PROOF OF COLLUSION, see my currently pinned tweet or the link in my Twitter profile.
(EXCERPT) Here are the first excerpts to be published from my forthcoming 450-page, 1,650-endnote book PROOF OF COLLUSION. More excerpts will be released each Monday until the book's November 13 release. I hope you'll RETWEET and consider preordering here: https://t.co/ZJsnHcVwGi pic.twitter.com/LDu7deiPJU
— Seth Abramson (@SethAbramson) October 15, 2018
PS/ To see a larger, more readily readable version of any of these excerpts, right-click and download the picture to your desktop. Then open the file and it will be much larger and easier to read.
BONUS FACT/ In the last excerpt, I refer to "any aide with whom Trump shared the classified intelligence he received in the [August 17, 2016] briefing." Well you might wonder—who did he share it with? Answer: we don't know.
But we DO know who was WITH HIM at the briefing: FLYNN.
BONUS FACT 2/ According to Mother Jones and Washington Post reporting, then, we know Flynn attended the August 17, 2016 briefing at which Trump was informed of Russian aggression, and THEREAFTER—but BEFORE the election—engaged in clandestine contacts with the Russian ambassador.
MAJOR BREAKING NEWS: Kremlin "Intermediary" George Papadopoulos Alleges President Trump Lied About Never Having Met With Him After March 2016; September 2016 Meeting Occurred After Trump Knew of Russian Attacks
2/ Trump's legal duty under the federal aiding and abetting statute not to do anything that might induce further Russian attacks was officially triggered on August 17, 2016, at his first classified briefing. Why was he meeting with a "Kremlin intermediary" weeks after this date?
By the time I introduced Donald Trump to the Egyptian president in September 2016, a politically motivated surveillance operation by at least the UK and Australia was targeted at me and the campaign for seven months. Who authorized that? Congress has the answers.
— George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) October 7, 2018
2/ Trump's legal duty under the federal aiding and abetting statute not to do anything that might induce further Russian attacks was officially triggered on August 17, 2016, at his first classified briefing. Why was he meeting with a "Kremlin intermediary" weeks after this date?
I... OMG. I am speechless. This is the *Oscars*. And this just happened. And I do not think it was a bit.
This feels to me like another sign that the world is off its hinges, so I sure hope we are going to find out that—despite there being no evidence of it—this was staged.
(PS) Either that was the most straight-faced comic bit in major-television history—in fact *so* straight-faced it was a total failure—or mega-Hollywood star Will Smith just straight-up *assaulted* a famous comic during one of the most widely watched annual telecasts in the world.
(PS2) I’m agreeing with those of you saying it wasn’t a bit, I just wanted to leave room because... well, because I just can’t believe what happened. I do know that Jada’s hair is a sensitive subject for her, but between that and a violent assault is a hell of a lot of territory.
(VIDEO) Here is the uncensored version.
Not a bit—an assault.
(PS3) This affected me. I just said to my wife, “If Will Smith can’t keep it together at the *Oscars*, how the hell can any of *us* be expected to keep it together anymore?” I’m not saying that response makes sense, only that it reflected how I was feeling.
These are dark times.
This feels to me like another sign that the world is off its hinges, so I sure hope we are going to find out that—despite there being no evidence of it—this was staged.
MAYHEM BETWEEN CHRIS ROCK AND WILL SMITH AT THE #Oscars pic.twitter.com/265hGbsEDg
— Barstool Sports (@barstoolsports) March 28, 2022
(PS) Either that was the most straight-faced comic bit in major-television history—in fact *so* straight-faced it was a total failure—or mega-Hollywood star Will Smith just straight-up *assaulted* a famous comic during one of the most widely watched annual telecasts in the world.
(PS2) I’m agreeing with those of you saying it wasn’t a bit, I just wanted to leave room because... well, because I just can’t believe what happened. I do know that Jada’s hair is a sensitive subject for her, but between that and a violent assault is a hell of a lot of territory.
(VIDEO) Here is the uncensored version.
Not a bit—an assault.
(PS3) This affected me. I just said to my wife, “If Will Smith can’t keep it together at the *Oscars*, how the hell can any of *us* be expected to keep it together anymore?” I’m not saying that response makes sense, only that it reflected how I was feeling.
These are dark times.
More from Politics
You May Also Like
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.